The Righthaven empire is in tatters. It hasn’t expanded its inventory of cases for months (no new cases in July or August); its existing inventory of cases is shrinking for lack of standing and, increasingly, for lack of service; given that, the existing defendants aren’t likely to settle, so Righthaven’s revenues are stagnant; instead, its profit meter is running in reverse with mounting sanctions and attorney’s fee awards; and as far as I can tell, Righthaven apparently has no full-time employees. Unless something changes big-time–such as a major victory in one of its Ninth Circuit appeals or a bankruptcy-inducing adverse fee award–it appears Righthaven will “quietly” fade into the sunset.

* In Democratic Underground v. Righthaven, Judge Hunt continues to raise the UPL issue: “the Court questions whether Righthaven can even have a legitimate interest under any agreement (no matter the rights purportedly transferred) because Stephens Media and Righthaven’s arrangement seems very much like a contingency fee arrangement with an entity unauthorized to practice law.” FN1: “The Court notes that it considered certifying the question of whether Righthaven is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law to the Nevada Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Court chose not to solely because that issue is not dispositive of this application because Stephens Media will adequately represent Righthaven’s theoretical interests and the application is untimely. However, the Court may yet certify the question in a separate case.”

* Righthaven v. Choudry, 2011 WL 2976800 (D. Nev. July 21, 2011): The court denied the defendant’s motion to reconsider. The court said: “The court understands defendant’s position that in-line linking and volitional conduct are two separate defenses. However, this court cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the presence of an RSS feed unequivocally absolves a defendant of any and all liability for potential copyright infringement. This court lacks the expertise required to determine when or how an individual may modify or otherwise alter the behavior of an RSS feed, if at all. As such, the court cannot make a legal determination on the consequences of any such modifications.”